We live in partisan times and our media habits can reinforce our own perspectives. Consider this an effort to expand our collective vision with trials beyond the range of our typical selections.

FROM LEFT

Excerpt from “We Didn’t Deserve Freya the Walrus”, by Ian Gordon in Mother Jones.

The background, from the author: Just a few weeks ago, a 1,300-pound walrus named Freya was enjoying the kind of Hot Girl Summer the average pinniped could only dream of. She had left her native Arctic waters and recently found herself off the coast of Oslo, Norway, where she delighted animal-loving onlookers and the internet by hoisting herself onto small boats, eating scallops and mussels and generally living a life of leisure and glamour. .

The excerpt: The Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries has warned the public to stay away from Freya, for their safety and hers. (A few days ago) officials said they were considering several options, including relocating Freya, but warned she may have to be killed if people don’t listen. Alas, people did not listen. And so on Sunday, Norwegian authorities euthanized Freya. … Freya paid with her life for this kind of human ignorance. Freya didn’t deserve this. And we didn’t deserve it.

Excerpt from “Yes, You Can Call Them Fascists”, by David Masciotra in The Progressive.

The background, from the author: The GOP and its allies have a lot in common with fascist movements of the past, so why can’t we just say that?

Excerpt: Evidence of the right-wing threat to national security and democracy mounts daily, but the mainstream media, and even center-left critics, continue to tread carefully. ‘Authoritarian’, ‘extreme’, ‘illiberal’, ‘anti-democratic’ and most inconsistently, ‘populist’ are the preferred terms of the Democratic Party, the journalistic establishment and commentators when discussing extremism of right. The problem is that none of these words mean much to the average American. The one word that effectively communicates the danger of the contemporary right-wing agenda is obviously off-limits: fascist.

Extract from “Water privatization makes the fight against climate change impossible”, by Chris Saltmarsh in Jacobin.

The context, from the author: Climate change is making droughts worse. And when water is privatized to enrich the water companies (as in Britain), we cannot adequately combat these droughts.

Excerpt: Like all public services providing basic needs, water must be managed in the interest of people and the planet, and not in the private interest. A 2017 poll showed that 83% of the British public supported the move. A convincing opposition could surely drive that number up further by communicating its necessity during a crisis. If we don’t take the greed out of our water system, we won’t see investment in infrastructure upgrades. We will see more homes and businesses damaged by burst pipes, and as extreme weather conditions intensify, we will not be able to guarantee access to water as a basic right for Drought. Its scarcity will have a ripple effect on the entire economy, disrupting the production of food, energy and beyond. Without water nationalization, it will be impossible to prepare for the worsening effects of climate change yet to come.

FROM THE RIGHT

From “Liz Cheney Is No Martyr. Just Another Wealthy, Authoritative Member of the DC Establishment,” by Victoria Marshall in The Federalist.

The background, from the author: (Rep. Liz) Cheney is not a hero, nor a martyr, but a privileged child of the DC establishment, so dependent on his last name that his last ad used dynasty in which she was born as a crutch.

Excerpt: Listening to DC’s corporate media and establishment, one would think that Cheney is history’s greatest hero, a political martyr who put “principle before party” and who s ‘bravely opposed Republican voters and their strong support for the party’s newest. chairman, support that Beltway insiders find inappropriate. These simplistic, error-packed soundbites work well in DC, but not in the rest of America.

Excerpt from “An Exercise in Missing the Point”, by Noah Rothman in Commentary.

The background, from the author: As a vague ideological guide, “environmentalism” has become a polarizing idea. Overall, Democrats support it, and Republicans do not.

Excerpt: The state, according to (New York Times columnist Paul) Krugman, is the author of all useful remedies for environmental degradation, and those who oppose the state’s efforts argue hence environmental degradation. The right, by contrast, has tended to embrace the private sector and consumer choice — even the rare kind created by taxpayer-funded incentives and regulatory standards — to advance environmental causes. Not, however, at the cost of the Constitution.

From “What if the law treated all politicians the same?” by Jim Geraghty in The National Review.

The background, from the author: Democrat and Republican bases believe that opposition party leaders get away with murder and their own leaders get thrown off the book just for crossing over.

Excerpt: The problem with the argument “They didn’t enforce the law against Hillary Clinton or Hunter Biden, but they did against Trump” is that it amounts to an argument that the justice system America is only fair if leaders and elites on both sides can ignore laws they find inconvenient. But we shouldn’t want any of our ignorant leaders any laws. If a law is worth publishing, it is worth enforcing; if it’s not worth applying, it’s not worth putting on the books. If a public official is breaking the law, then prosecute them — even if it’s the Democratic nominee weeks away from the convention, or a former president who is set to seek another term.